Lexically triggered veridicality inferences

Aaron Steven White
University of Rochester

Table of contents

Taken literally, the exchange in (1) seems an exercise in solipsism.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Abbott, Barbara
2000 “Presuppositions as nonassertions.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1419–1437. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Where have some of the presuppositions gone.” In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, ed. by G. L. Ward and B. J. Birner, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Abrusán, Márta
2011 “Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers.” Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (6): 491–535. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Presupposition cancellation: Explaining the ‘Soft-Hard’ trigger distinction.” Natural Language Semantics 24 (2): 165–202. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Abusch, Dorit
2002 “Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12: 1–19. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Presupposition triggering from alternatives.” Journal of Semantics 27 (1): 37–80. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, Pranav and Valentine Hacquard
2014 “Factivity, belief and discourse.” In The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1), ed. byLuka Crnič and Uli Sauerland, 69–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas
1993Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals.” Journal of Semantics 17 (1): 31–50. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Baglini, Rebekah and Itamar Francez
2016 “The implications of managing.” Journal of Semantics 33 (3): 541–560. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David
1995 “Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics.” Ms., University of Edinburgh.
2010 “Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing.” In Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp (Current Research in the Semantics / Pragmatics Interface 21), ed. byRainer Bauerle, Uwe Reyle and Thomas Zimmermann, 65–100. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Beaver, David and Brady Clark
2008Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. (Explorations in Semantics, Vol. 5). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I., Craige Roberts, Mandy Simons and Judith Tonhauser
2017 “Questions under discussion: Where information structure meets projective content.” Annual Review of Linguistics 3: 265–284. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David and Henk Zeevat
2007 “Accommodation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh
1999 “Covert modality in non-finite contexts.” Ms., University of Pennsylvania.
Boër, Steven E. and William G. Lycan
1976 “The myth of semantic presupposition.” Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–90.Google Scholar
Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth A.
2016 “Building meaning in Navajo.” Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Borgonovo, Claudia and Sarah Cummins
2007 “Tensed modals.” In Coreference, Modality, and Focus: Studies on the Syntax–Semantics Interface, ed. by Luis Eguren and Olga Fernández-Soriano, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray
1978 “On the source of interrogative adverbs.” Language 54: 61–77. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Chemla, Emmanuel
2009 “Presuppositions of quantified sentences: Experimental data.” Natural Language Semantics 17 (4): 299–340. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Similarity: Towards a unified account of scalar implicatures, free choice permission and presupposition projection.” Ms., Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris.
Chierchia, Gennaro and Sally McConnell-Ginet
1990Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Linda
1975 “The case of the vanishing presupposition.” Papers from the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1:78–89.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget
2019 “Force dynamics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure, ed. by Robert Truswell, 137–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Djärv, Kajsa and Hezekiah Akiva Bacovcin
2017 “Prosodic effects on factive presupposition projection.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 27:116–133. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Djärv, Kajsa, Jérémy Zehr and Florian Schwarz
2018 “Cognitive vs. emotive factives: An experimental differentiation.” In Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 21, ed. by Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern and Hannah Rohde, 367–85. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Dudley, Rachel
2017 “The role of input in discovering presuppositions triggers: Figuring out what everybody already knew.” Ms., College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Egré, Paul
2008 “Question-embedding and factivity.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (1): 85–125. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Falk, Ingrid and Fabienne Martin
2017 “Towards an inferential lexicon of event selecting predicates for French.” In IWCS 2017 – 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics – Long Papers.Google Scholar
Farudi, Annahita
2007 “An antisymmetric approach to Persian clausal complements.” Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Frank, Michael C. and Noah D. Goodman
2012 “Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games.” Science 336 (6084): 998–998. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1997 [1892] “On Sinn Und Bedeutung.” In The Frege Reader, ed. by Michael Beaney, 151–71. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1979Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky
1971 “On invited inferences.” Linguistic Inquiry 2 (4): 561–66.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart
1994 “Presupposing.” Ms., Universität Osnabrück.
1998 “Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts.” Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (6): 545–601. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
1994 “The Semantic Licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek Subjunctive.” In Yearbook of the Research Group for Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics (Vol. 4), ed. byAle de Boer, Helen de Hoop and Henriette de Swart, 55–68. Language and Cognition. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
1998Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Affective dependencies.” Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (4): 367–421. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2001 “Varieties of polarity items and the (non) veridicality hypothesis.” In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, 99–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity.” Lingua 119 (12): 1883–1908. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Alda Mari
. to appear. Veridicality in Grammar and Thought: Modality, Propositional Attitudes and Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Eleni Staraki
2013 “Rethinking ability: Ability as modality and ability as action.” In Genericity, ed. by Alda Mari, 250--275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1973 “The time-axis phenomenon.” Language 49 (4): 890–925. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Glass, Lelia
. under review. “The negatively biased Mandarin belief verb yıwei.” Ms.
Goldberg, Adele E.
2013 “Constructionist approaches.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Noah D. and Andreas Stuhlmüller
2013 “Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition.” Topics in Cognitive Science 5. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Grano, Thomas
2012 “Control and restructuring at the syntax-semantics interface.” Ms., University of Chicago.
. in prep. Attitude Reports. Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, Paul
1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof
1984 “Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers.” Ms., University of Amsterdam.
Hacquard, Valentine
. to appear. “Actuality entailments.” In Companion to Semantics ed. by L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann and T. E. Zimmermann. London: Wiley.
2006 “Aspects of modality.” Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2008 “Restructuring and implicative properties of volere.” In Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung (Vol. 12), ed. byAtle Grønn, 165–79. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
2009 “On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries.” Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (3): 279–315. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles L.
1973 “Questions in Montague English.” Foundations of Language 10 (1): 41–53.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene
1982 “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases.” Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1983a “File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.” In Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, ed. by Rainer B¨auerle, Christoph Schwarze and Arnim von Stechow, 164–89. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1983b “On the projection problem for presuppositions.” In Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by M. Barlow, D. Flickinger and M. Westcoat, 114–26. Stanford University.Google Scholar
1992 “Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs.” Journal of Semantics 9 (3): 183–221. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Homer, Vincent
2010 “Actuality entailments in french: a case of aspectual coercion.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 28:455–80.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B.
1975 “On assertive predicates.” In Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 4), ed. byJohn P. Kimball, 91–124. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. and Sandra A. Thompson
1973 “On the applicability of root transformations.” Linguistic Inquiry 4 (4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence
1972 “On the semantic properties of logical operators in English.” Ms., UCLA.
1989A Natural History of Negation. University of Chicago Press Chicago.Google Scholar
Hunter, Julie
2016 “Reports in discourse.” Dialogue & Discourse 7 (4).Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle
1993From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 42). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1971a “Implicative verbs.” Language 47: 340–58. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1971b “Some observations on factivity.” Papers in Linguistics 4 (1): 55–69. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1973 “Presuppositions of compound sentences.” Linguistic Inquiry 4 (2): 169–193.Google Scholar
1974 “Presupposition and linguistic context.” Theoretical Linguistics 1 (1–3): 181–194. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1977 “Syntax and semantics of questions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1): 3–44. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Simple and phrasal implicatives.” In Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, 124–31. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
2013 “You will be lucky to break even.” In From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, ed. by Tracy Holloway King and Valeria dePaiva, 167–80.Google Scholar
2016 “Presupposition: What went wrong?Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26: 705–31. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters
1979 “Conventional implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 11), ed. by C-K. Oh and D. Dineen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri, Stanley Peters, Annie Zaenen and Cleo Condoravdi
2014 “The chameleon-like nature of evaluative adjectives.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 10), ed. byChristopher Piñón, 233–50. Paris: CSSP-CNRS.Google Scholar
Kastner, Itamar
2015 “Factivity mirrors interpretation: The selectional requirements of presuppositional verbs.” Lingua 164: 156–188. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. and Terence Langendoen
1976 “Pragmatics and presupposition.” Language 52 (1): 1–17. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul
1992 “The inheritance of presuppositions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (4): 333–379. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M.
1975Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky
1970 “Fact.” In Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, ed. by Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph, 143–73. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Koev, Todor
2018 “Parentheticality, assertion strength, and discourse.” In Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung (Vol. 21), ed. byRobert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern and Hannah Rohde, 679–94. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2006 “Decomposing attitude verbs.” Ms., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Langendoen, D. Terence and Harris Savin
1971 “The projection problem for presuppositions.” In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. by Charles Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen, 373–388. New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston.Google Scholar
Lee, Kenton, Yoav Artzi, Yejin Choi and Luke Zettlemoyer
2015 “Event detection and factuality assessment with non-expert supervision.” In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 1643–1648 Lisbon, Portugal: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Leusen, Noor van
2012 “The accommodation potential of implicative verbs.” In Logic, Language and Meaning, ed. by Maria Aloni, Vadim Kimmelman, Floris Roelofsen, Galit W. Sassoon, Katrin Schulz and Matthijs Westera, 7218:421–30. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
1969Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1979 “Scorekeeping in a language game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339–59. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lotan, Amnon, Asher Stern and Ido Dagan
2013 “Truthteller: Annotating predicate truth.” In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 752–757. Atlanta, Georgia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
MacCartney, Bill
2009 “Natural language inference.” Ms., Stanford University.
Mari, Alda and Fabienne Martin
2007 “Tense, abilities and actuality entailment.” In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker and Floris Roelofsen, 151–56. Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Palteam.Google Scholar
Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, Christopher D. Manning and Christopher Potts
2012 “Did it happen? The pragmatic complexity of veridicality assessment.” Computational Linguistics 38 (2): 301–33. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John
1980 “Circumscription – a form of non-monotonic reasoning.” Artificial Intelligence 13 (1–2): 27–39. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L.
1969 “On the treatment of presupposition in transformational grammar.” In Papers from Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by R. Binnick et al., 167–177. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir
2009 “Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation.” Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Nadathur, Prerna
2016 “Causal necessity and sufficiency in implicativity.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26: 1002–21. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Nairn, Rowan, Cleo Condoravdi and Lauri Karttunen
2006 “Computing relative polarity for textual inference.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics (ICoS-5), 20–21. Buxton, England: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1969 “English aspectual verbs.” In Studies in Linguistics and Language Learning (Vol. 6). Seattle, WA: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Ozyildiz, Deniz
2017 “Attitude reports with and without true belief.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 27:397–417. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlick, Ellie and Chris Callison-Burch
2016 “Tense manages to predict implicative behavior in verbs.” In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2225–2229. Austin, Texas: Association for Computational Linguistics. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2005The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Qing, Ciyang, Noah D. Goodman and Daniel Lassiter
2016 “A rational speech-act model of projective content.” In Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Roberts, Craige
1996 “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics.” Working Papers in Linguistics-Ohio State University Department of Linguistics 91–136.Google Scholar
Romoli, Jacopo
2011 “The presuppositions of soft triggers aren’t presuppositions.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 21: 236–56. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures.” Journal of Semantics 32 (2): 173–219. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats
1992 “A theory of focus interpretation.” Natural Language Semantics 1 (1): 75–116. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1973 “Slifting.” In The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages, ed. by Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, 133–69. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Roussou, Anna
2010 “Selecting complementizers.” Lingua 120 (3): 582–603. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rudinger, Rachel, Aaron Steven White and Benjamin Van Durme
2018 “Neural models of factuality.” In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), 731–744. New Orleans, Louisiana: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology​/N18​-1067. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand
1905 “On denoting.” Mind 14 (56): 479–93. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Saurí, Roser and James Pustejovsky
2009 “FactBank: A corpus annotated with event factuality.” Language Resources and Evaluation 43 (3): 227. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Are you sure that this happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in text.” Computational Linguistics 38 (2): 261–99. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe
2005 “The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive: Speculations on reference to worlds and semantics defaults in the analysis of mood.” In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” 2003, ed. by Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken and Haike Jacobs, 269–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2008 “Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition projection.” Theoretical Linguistics 34 (3): 157–212.Google Scholar
2009 “Local contexts.” Semantics and Pragmatics 2: 1–78. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Presuppositions and local contexts.” Mind 119 (474): 377–391. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2011a “Presupposition projection: Two theories of local contexts, Part I.” Language and Linguistics Compass 5 (12): 848–857. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2011b “Presupposition projection: Two theories of local contexts, Part II.” Language and Linguistics Compass 5 (12): 858–879. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Katrin
2011 “If you’d wiggled a, then b would’ve changed.” Synthese 179 (2): 239–51. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Katrin and Robert Van Rooij
2006 “Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation.” Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (2): 205–50. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Petra
2003Factivity: Its Nature and Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1984Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid
1954 “Presupposing.” The Philosophical Review 63 (2): 197–215. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle and Wolfram Hinzen
2011 “Moving towards the edge.” Linguistic Analysis 37 (3–4): 405–458.Google Scholar
Simons, Mandy
2001 “On the conversational basis of some presuppositions.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11: 431–48. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition.” Lingua 117 (6): 1034–56. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy, David Beaver, Craige Roberts and Judith Tonhauser
2017 “The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factives.” Discourse Processes 54 (3): 187–206. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy, Judith Tonhauser, David Beaver and Craige Roberts
2010 “What projects and why.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20:309–27. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Spector, Benjamin and Paul Egré
2015 “A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer.” Synthese 192 (6): 1729–84. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Spenader, Jennifer
2003 “Factive presuppositions, accommodation and information structure.” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (3): 351–368. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1973 “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4): 447–57. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1974 “Pragmatic presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovsky, Gabriel, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Yevgeniy Puzikov, Ido Dagan and Iryna Gurevych
2017 “Integrating deep linguistic features in factuality prediction over unified datasets.” In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 352–357. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F.
1950 “On referring.” Mind 59 (235): 320–344. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Shoichi
2010 “The hidden side of clausal complements.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28 (2): 343–380. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith
2016 “Prosodic cues to presupposition projection.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26:934–960. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, David I. Beaver and Judith Degen
2018 “How projective is projective content? gradience in projectivity and at-issueness.” Journal of Semantics 35 (3): 495–542. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Urmson, James O.
1952 “Parenthetical verbs.” Mind 61 (244): 480–96. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Sandt, Rob A.
1992 “Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution.” Journal of Semantics 9 (4): 333–377. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Varlokosta, Spyridoula
1994 “Issues in Modern Greek sentential complementation.” Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.
White, Aaron Steven
2014 “Factive-implicatives and modalized complements.” In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Jyoti Iyer and Leland Kusmer, 267–78. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
White, Aaron Steven and Kyle Rawlins
2018 “The role of veridicality and factivity in clause selection.” In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, to appear. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
White, Aaron Steven, Drew Reisinger, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Tim Vieira, Sheng Zhang, Rachel Rudinger, Kyle Rawlins and Benjamin Van Durme
2016 “Universal decompositional semantics on universal dependencies.” In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1713–1723. Austin, TX: Association for Computational Linguistics. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
White, Aaron Steven, Rachel Rudinger, Kyle Rawlins and Benjamin Van Durme
2018 “Lexicosyntactic inference in neural models.” In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 4717–4724. Brussels, Belgium: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://​aclweb​.org​/anthology​/D18​-1501. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
1975Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Dan Sperber
1979 “Ordered entailments: An alternative to presuppositional theories.” Syntax and Semantics 11: 299–323.Google Scholar
Zeevat, Henk
1992 “Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics.” Journal of Semantics 9 (4): 379–412. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, Frans
1995 “Nonveridical contexts.” Linguistic Analysis 25 (3): 286.Google Scholar